9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the ITO on account of difference in the value of certain diamond ornaments found during the course of search. The other ground taken by the assessee relates to invalidity of interest charged under sections 139(8) and 215 of the Income-tax Act. 2. During the course of search, diamond ornaments mentioned at Sr. Nos. 40 to 45 of the Annexure-A to the Panchnama dated 21-1-1982 were found, which was valued by the Valuer appointed by the Income-tax department at an aggregate sum of ₹ 75,300. Para. 10 of the order passed under section 132(5) dated 15-4-1982 reveals that Shri Gautam produced at the time of search a bill of M/s. V.J. Jewellers for ₹ 22,568 in respect of purchase of 17.35 carats of diamonds and the bill f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent at the time of valuation, so that the Departmental Valuer may not value the ornaments on high side. The assessee did not receive any response from the said authority and was not allowed to have the benefit of presence of his Valuer. He further invited our attention towards his letter dated 12-4-1982 in which again a reference of the aforesaid letter submitted to the DDI was given. It was further contended that the value adopted by the Departmental Valuer is extremely high and cannot be accepted unless the assessee is given an opportunity to cross-examine the Departmental Valuer. The assessee submitted that the aforesaid diamond ornaments are fully verifiable from the purchase bills obtained from M/s. V.J. Jewellers coupled with the bil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmissions made by the learned representatives and have also gone through the entire material, to which our attention was drawn during the course of hearing. A perusal of para 8 of order passed by the ITO, under section 132(5) shows that gold ornaments value at ₹ 88,874 appearing at S. Nos. 52 to 74 of Annexure-A to Panchnama dated 21-1-1982 were the only items, which were seized as the assessee could not explain the sources of those items. It is also an undisputed fact that the assessee produced at the time of search itself the above referred bill of M/s. V.J. Jewellers for purchase of 17.35 carats of diamonds and the bill for labour charges for making the diamond jewellery in question for ₹ 6,500. The authorised Officers of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... burden clearly lies upon the department to prove that the value shown in the purchase invoice is not the real value. The department has not brought any material whatsoever on records to prove that the value of such diamonds embedded in the diamond jewellery at the time of its purchase in the month of July 1981 was under-stated in the purchase invoices. Such a burden is required to be discharged by the department by bringing clinching and conclusive evidence on records. The ITO has not even examined the jeweller from whom these diamonds were purchased. 7.1 The CIT(A) has also not given any reasons as to on what basis he was inclined to accept the stand taken by the ITO in treating the difference of the value of diamond jewellery as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
